Fukuda Haruhisa, Imanaka Yuichi
Department of Healthare Economics and Quality Management, School of Public Health, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
J Eval Clin Pract. 2009 Jun;15(3):451-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.01033.x. Epub 2009 Apr 2.
Transparency of costing is essential for decision-makers who require information on the efficiency of a health care programme, because effective decisions depend largely on applicability to their settings. The main objectives of this study were to assess published studies for transparency of cost estimates.
We first developed criteria with two axes by reviewing publications dealing with economic evaluations and cost accounting studies: clarification of the scope of costing and accuracy of method evaluating costs. We then performed systematic searches of the literature for studies which estimated prevention costs and assessed the transparency and accuracy of costing based on our criteria.
Forty studies met the inclusion criteria. Half of the studies reported data for both the quantity and unit price of programmes in regard to prevention costs. Although 30 studies estimated costs of adverse events, 19 of these described the scope of costing only, and just five studies used a micro-costing method. Among 30 studies that estimated 'gross cost savings' and 'net cost savings', there was a huge discrepancy in labels.
Even if a cost study was conducted in accordance with existing techniques of economic evaluation which mostly paid attention to internal validity of cost estimates, without adequate explanation of the process of costing, reproducibility cannot be assured and the study may lose its value as scientific information. This study found that there is tremendous room for improvement.
成本核算的透明度对于需要了解医疗保健项目效率信息的决策者至关重要,因为有效的决策很大程度上取决于其在实际环境中的适用性。本研究的主要目的是评估已发表研究中成本估算的透明度。
我们首先通过回顾经济评估和成本核算研究的相关出版物,制定了一个有两个维度的标准:成本核算范围的明确性和成本评估方法的准确性。然后,我们对文献进行系统检索,以查找估算预防成本的研究,并根据我们的标准评估成本核算的透明度和准确性。
40项研究符合纳入标准。一半的研究报告了预防成本方面项目数量和单价的数据。虽然30项研究估算了不良事件的成本,但其中19项仅描述了成本核算范围,只有5项研究采用了微观成本核算方法。在估算“总成本节约”和“净成本节约”的30项研究中,标签存在巨大差异。
即使一项成本研究是按照主要关注成本估算内部有效性的现有经济评估技术进行的,但如果没有对成本核算过程进行充分解释,就无法保证可重复性,该研究可能会失去作为科学信息的价值。本研究发现仍有很大的改进空间。